Australian Politics Forum - The Heavy Legacies of Our Past

Storm Senior Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 350 Gender:	Re: The Heavy Legacies of Our Past Reply #165 - May 14^th, 2016 at 5:48pm No that's a bore now. Maybe we could Ban Them, Jolly blah blah no ? Yawn Paging FD spoon feeding needed again.
Back to top	IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: The Heavy Legacies of Our Past Reply #166 - May 14^th, 2016 at 6:25pm Karnal wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 5:44pm: How? Elections. Getting the hang of this yet K?
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96377	Re: The Heavy Legacies of Our Past Reply #167 - May 14^th, 2016 at 6:32pm polite_gandalf wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 6:25pm: Karnal wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 5:44pm: How? Elections. Getting the hang of this yet K? I think I am, G. But what if they have erections in a caliphate? What then?
Back to top	IP Logged

Storm Senior Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 350 Gender:	Re: The Heavy Legacies of Our Past Reply #168 - May 14^th, 2016 at 7:33pm Karnal wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 6:32pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 6:25pm: Karnal wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 5:44pm: How? Elections. Getting the hang of this yet K? I think I am, G. But what if they have erections in a caliphate? What then? Just top each other.
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96377

Re: The Heavy Legacies of Our Past
Reply #169 - May 14^th, 2016 at 8:38pm

Storm wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 7:33pm:

Karnal wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 6:32pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 6:25pm:

Karnal wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 5:44pm:

How?

Elections.

Getting the hang of this yet K? Grin

I think I am, G. But what if they have erections in a caliphate?

What then?

Just top each other.

Yes, Matty, but someone must be the bottom.

FD’s saying it’s Whitey. Do you want to play Mother?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49366
At my desk.

Re: The Heavy Legacies of Our Past
Reply #170 - May 15^th, 2016 at 9:22am

Karnal wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 5:31pm:

Frank wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 2:38pm:

Karnal wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 9:17pm:

Frank wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

Karnal wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 5:35pm:

When Marx was asked the cryptic philosophical question, what is?, he answered with a quick, one-word answer: struggle.

It's just NOT class struggle, which was his monomaniacal slant.

Marx’s slant was most certainly not monomaniacal, Frank. It was dialectic.

His argument was that the struggle between two opposing forces drives history; the struggle between empires, classes and competing economic superstructures.

It’s fairly hard to argue the historical momentum from the French revolution on was not about class struggle. It’s impossible to argue that the Roman republic and its classes of patricians, plebians and slaves was not driven by class struggle too.

It was monomaniacal alright, a bit like Mohammed's revelations: they both thought that their ideas were the final answer and solution to all the troubles that went before them. Marx though that the class struggle will end with the triumph of the proletariat whose dictatorship will eventually lead to such enlightenment that there will be no classes and therefore class struggle and no dialectics becuase the opposites will have been dissolved (that's what communism is meant to be). Like all final prophets, he believed he was onto the end of history.

Many do, Frank. Like Hegel, FD thinks liberal democracy is the end of history. His argument about inclusiveness is all about the inevitable transition towards what he calls democracy; or erections.

If the Muselman doesn't get there first. FD, you see, believes that Western liberal democracy is the default global political model, and in many ways, he's right. Western liberal democracy is the political model of our current stage of capitalism, which is the global economic superstructure.

This superstructure is led by the US, so it's no surprise where the world gets its political model from. When Mother ruled the show, the world got its colonial model from her. When Rome ran the shop - you get the idea.

For FD, the Muselman wants to take away the US's Freeeeedom by beheading decent white people and establishing a global caliphate. Cunning, no? All Muselmen, from the fake-reformist G to the sinister and evasive Abu and Falah, want to interfere with history's telos, which is erections.

FD's article comes down to two things: theocracy and erections, the caliphate and the Roman empire.

Clash of civilisations, innit: Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. FD, you see, is a Hegelian.

It is a jolly world, no?

Karnal do you disagree with anything I have actually said?

Do you think the Caliphate was more inclusive than the Roman Republic?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96377

Re: The Heavy Legacies of Our Past
Reply #171 - May 15^th, 2016 at 11:35am

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 9:22am:

Karnal wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 5:31pm:

Frank wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 2:38pm:

Karnal wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 9:17pm:

Frank wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

Karnal wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 5:35pm:

When Marx was asked the cryptic philosophical question, what is?, he answered with a quick, one-word answer: struggle.

It's just NOT class struggle, which was his monomaniacal slant.

Marx’s slant was most certainly not monomaniacal, Frank. It was dialectic.

His argument was that the struggle between two opposing forces drives history; the struggle between empires, classes and competing economic superstructures.

It’s fairly hard to argue the historical momentum from the French revolution on was not about class struggle. It’s impossible to argue that the Roman republic and its classes of patricians, plebians and slaves was not driven by class struggle too.

It was monomaniacal alright, a bit like Mohammed's revelations: they both thought that their ideas were the final answer and solution to all the troubles that went before them. Marx though that the class struggle will end with the triumph of the proletariat whose dictatorship will eventually lead to such enlightenment that there will be no classes and therefore class struggle and no dialectics becuase the opposites will have been dissolved (that's what communism is meant to be). Like all final prophets, he believed he was onto the end of history.

Many do, Frank. Like Hegel, FD thinks liberal democracy is the end of history. His argument about inclusiveness is all about the inevitable transition towards what he calls democracy; or erections.

If the Muselman doesn't get there first. FD, you see, believes that Western liberal democracy is the default global political model, and in many ways, he's right. Western liberal democracy is the political model of our current stage of capitalism, which is the global economic superstructure.

This superstructure is led by the US, so it's no surprise where the world gets its political model from. When Mother ruled the show, the world got its colonial model from her. When Rome ran the shop - you get the idea.

For FD, the Muselman wants to take away the US's Freeeeedom by beheading decent white people and establishing a global caliphate. Cunning, no? All Muselmen, from the fake-reformist G to the sinister and evasive Abu and Falah, want to interfere with history's telos, which is erections.

FD's article comes down to two things: theocracy and erections, the caliphate and the Roman empire.

Clash of civilisations, innit: Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. FD, you see, is a Hegelian.

It is a jolly world, no?

Karnal do you disagree with anything I have actually said?

Do you think the Caliphate was more inclusive than the Roman Republic?

No.

Why were the republic’s erections more inclusive than the caliphate’s systems of inclusiveness?

Cat got your tongue?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49366 At my desk.	Re: The Heavy Legacies of Our Past Reply #172 - May 15^th, 2016 at 11:48am Because of the much larger number of people having a say in how things are run.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96377

Re: The Heavy Legacies of Our Past
Reply #173 - May 15^th, 2016 at 12:06pm

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 11:48am:

Because of the much larger number of people having a say in how things are run.

But you haven’t said how things were run in the caliphate, FD. In large populations, erections are not participatory at all. Majority rules.

And before you say Roman citizens could stand for office in the republic, they couldn’t. This was reserved for patricians. You might as well say the Roman republic was a one-party state.

Your argument would have North Korea as more inclusive than the Roman republic because more people get the vote.

And this, I would say, is why your theorist avoids erections as the key determinant of political inclusivity. Erections merely give people the illusion of participation. In most of the utopian political models proposed by the West, erections weren’t an issue. Plato’s republic, Moore’s Utopia, even Marx’s communism -.erections are absent. This is because, like the Roman republic, these writers all saw class as the main factor in political inclusiveness. Indeed, Muhammed’s caliphate owed more to Plato’s republic than it did to modern ideas of liberal democracy.

Cunning, no? Like Plato’s unelected philosopher kings, the rulers of the caliphate were direct descendants of the prophet.

Not unlike North Korea, eh? But according to you, they’re a democracy.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 15^th, 2016 at 12:16pm by Karnal »

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: The Heavy Legacies of Our Past Reply #174 - May 15^th, 2016 at 12:33pm Elections are a cynical tool to consolidate and protect dictatorships. Classic example, when Tsar Nicholas II allowed elections to stave off revolution.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49366
At my desk.

Re: The Heavy Legacies of Our Past
Reply #175 - May 15^th, 2016 at 12:38pm

Quote:

But you haven’t said how things were run in the caliphate, FD. In large populations, erections are not participatory at all. Majority rules.

Do you think 'minority rules' would be more inclusive?

Quote:

Your argument would have North Korea as more inclusive than the Roman republic because more people get the vote.

This is my argument again:

Because of the much larger number of people having a say in how things are run.

Can you explain how your BS about North Korea is my argument?

Quote:

And this, I would say, is why your theorist avoids erections as the key determinant of political inclusivity.

He uses the term political inclusivity to deal with people who cannot tell the difference between democracy and elections under Saddam or North Korea, and who try to use their comprehension problems as an argument.

Quote:

Elections are a cynical tool to consolidate and protect dictatorships. Classic example, when Tsar Nicholas II allowed elections to stave off revolution.

And people use wishy washy western liberal morals to cynically smear Islam, right Gandalf?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96377

Re: The Heavy Legacies of Our Past
Reply #176 - May 15^th, 2016 at 12:58pm

You’re just repeating, FD, you’re not providing an argument. Of course your one-word political axiom, erections, has you championing the inclusivity of North Korea and Saddam.

They had/have erections. This is your sole criteria for the superiority of the Roman republic over the caliphate. I’ve asked you to define, clarify, explain and discuss, but you won’t. You just keep coming back with your outraged, camp rebuttals. How very dare you.

But I’m curious. Why are you even comparing the Roman republic with an Arab dynasty 700 years later? You originally said your argument was that the Roman empire was more politically inclusive than its contemporaries.

Why are we even discussing the caliphate?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49366
At my desk.

Re: The Heavy Legacies of Our Past
Reply #177 - May 15^th, 2016 at 1:04pm

Oh look, here I go repeating myself again, without mentioning elections:

Because of the much larger number of people having a say in how things are run.

We are discussing the Caliphate because you keep comparing it to the Republic. Perhaps you would like ask me again about why North Korea or Saddam's Iraq were less inclusive than other modern democracies, despite having elections?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96377

Re: The Heavy Legacies of Our Past
Reply #178 - May 15^th, 2016 at 1:15pm

polite_gandalf wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 12:33pm:

Elections are a cynical tool to consolidate and protect dictatorships. Classic example, when Tsar Nicholas II allowed elections to stave off revolution.

This is how people get parliaments and erections the world over. The US got theirs through a revolution, Western Europe got its erections after the 1848 revolutions, Britain got universal suffrage after WWI, when the rest of Europe was turning to communism.

FD believes liberal democracy just evolves as if by some gravitational historical force. Liberal democracy has always arisen as a negotiated payoff by rulers to their subjects to stop them revolting. France, Germany, Britain, Russia, all established the political systems they have today through bargains with revolutionaries. In Russia, the revolutionaries reneged, but they’re back to the duma, which has been taken over by a new form of tzar.

Today, liberal democracy is the default position because the interests of capital demand it. Elections and forms of political inclusivity are often IMF loan conditions, as they were in Mexico, Argentina, Indonesia and Thailand. Here,, economic forces demand the payoff of liberal democracy to stop political unrest and sovereign risk.

This is being challenged today by the rise of China, and in Europe, Putin. We can include the failure of the Arab Spring. With economic and political insecurity, people are prepared to accept dictators again. Perhaps the best example of this is occurring with the popular appeal of Donald Trump in the heart of the empire.

People are prepared to give up freedoms if they can be made to believe its about sticking it to the lower classes, in the US’ case, Mexicans and the Muselman.

Unlike FD, who also supports freedoms being taken away for this end, I can’t see liberal democracy being the dominant political model for much longer. It’s certainly not the end of history as Fukuyama (and FD) once held.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 15^th, 2016 at 1:30pm by Karnal »

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96377

Re: The Heavy Legacies of Our Past
Reply #179 - May 15^th, 2016 at 1:33pm

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 1:04pm:

Oh look, here I go repeating myself again, without mentioning elections:

Because of the much larger number of people having a say in how things are run.

We are discussing the Caliphate because you keep comparing it to the Republic. Perhaps you would like ask me again about why North Korea or Saddam's Iraq were less inclusive than other modern democracies, despite having elections?

I didn’t ask, FD, but you didn’t answer either.

We’ll ask and answer now, shall we? Why was the Roman.republic more politically inclusive than Saddam’s Iraq?

We’re discussing the caliphate because it’s in your essay. Why did you include the caliphate and Arab inbreeding in an essay on the political legacy of Rome?

I’m curious.

Back to top

IP Logged